Comments by "Xyz Same" (@xyzsame4081) on "Fox Business" channel.

it is not creating a "freedom" or "technology" dividend when the citizens have to pay for it in form of a sales tax. And worse: the states that already have a sales tax (a modest one compared to the European countries) will be screwed. In Europe the tax revenue is federal and then it it redistributed to the states and communities. So the difference between rich and poor provinces or states is not as pronounced.
1
part 2 of 6 For profit insurance companies are _glorified middlemem they do not DELIVER care and they add nothing to make delivery of care better. Nor could they improve the admin - there is little to improve, it is all standards and routines. Their most important goal is to maximize profits and they answer to the shareholders. Non-profit insurance agencies are middle man (paper shufflers) too - well behaved and with much, much less overhead than the insurance companies (less than 4 that's a global number, versus plus 20 % in the U.S. for private insurerers) Public non-profit insurers help to make healthcare happen for everyone and they respond to pressure from the electorate.
1
Iran the natural hegemon in the region - and we the US supported that as is shown in our support for the shah until 1979 - Lawrence Wilkerson - check him out !
1
@CocoXLarge right wing talking points. You mean the Republican government that ignored the bubble that developed under their watch (like they were asleep at the wheel regarding 9/11 - and that is the friendly assumption. The real estate bubble kept the economy going. The Cheney / Bush admin wanted war not a infrastructure program at home. they all ignored the open letter of the appraisers published in the New York Times. (I recommend the Ted talk of Prof. Bill Black - he helped the FBI with the S & L scandal - ALSO under a Republican president. They could have done the math on what amount of debt the banks sold to banks outside the U.S. or the volume of obligations versus the stagnant wages. or have a consumer protection agency go after the skillfull, tested and hones sales process (just kidding the Republicans would never support such an agency for exactely that reason - they might stand in the way of the banksters). The goal of the skripts was to excite low(er) income people - as long as the music is playing they are liked for reckless / fraudulent schemes. They will pay higher interest rates. - And to sell higher loans to better borrowers (not only the house but the new car or the pool on top). The BANKS that intentionally sold loans with lower payments in the beginning and increasing payments a few years later. The government that equally intentional ignored that. The borrowers were tickled with entrepreneurial arguments. Even IF they would not be able to hold on to the real estate - they would be able to sell it with a win (constantly rising prices) - not being timid now would be the first step towards the American Dream. The bipartisan support of deregulation - ending in 1998 / 1999 allowing Big Finance to engage in bets (Derivatives) w/o any oversight. Alan Greenspan the Republican and Ayn Rand fan was very much against the agency that had made an attempt to assess to what degree banks engaged in that kind of speculation. Only that let them all go ballistic - so they had their Congress pass laws to protect the speculators from being monitored by an agency. Now deregulation was started by Reagan and every president since then added to it. But: Cheney / Bush could have reversed that speculator friendly law (just kidding) or at least have an eye in general at the situation. The bailout was started before Obama came into office. That was one of the points where Republicans did not stonewall Obama btw.
1
@CocoXLarge if the government gives wrong incentives - what would keep the prudent industry from pointing that out and pushing for regulation to have a level playing field and safe practices. After all they are really good in getting done what they want and have hordes of lobbyists and lawyers, never mind the media. (the wrong incentive was the banks knew they would have no oversight and they assumed they would away without prosecution)
1
@CocoXLarge you have literally no idea what caused the Great Depression and spew out the usual right wing talking points. Laissez-faire capitalism ruled before the the Great Depression, that is not a great tack record for the people that promote it because it serves THEM. and the New Deal was such a success that FDR got himself elected in 1932, 36, 40, 44 - the citizens living thorugh the times do not share your ideas about the New Deal. when FDR came into office the country was on the brink of a national bank run. That was march 1933 - the crash was at the end of Oct. 1929 - plenty of time to sort out a crisis - and if it is not sorted by then the usual means obviously do not work. First thing was a 5 days banking holiday to sort out the banks and pass laws for deposit insurance. THAT kept banking safe for 50 years. And even the S & L scandal was a small thing compared to the GFC. The New Deal ideas were pursued after WW2. And not to sound too cynical, but war is one government spending program (with massive debt btw, debt to GDP ratio was 120 %). For weapons, exports to allies and paying the soldiers. I think they did not spend boldly enough and until the U.S. was sorting itself halfway out the signs in Europe were already for war. That is not a good time to start an export campaign. What was different after and during the war was that the protectionism was not at play anymore. The U.S. supplied weapons to UK (that is export). With that high level of debt - they continued to boldly spend after they war. They took the 2ndf law of Keynes also seriously. Thou shalt use the good times to reduce debt. So they did that - by getting the taxes from the rich and profitable companies. The economy did well and if a biz did not invest (more jobs and some other company made profits) - they did pay. And got a grip on debt within 10 years. the ratio of debt versus GDP. So GDP also grew fast and that put debt very much into perspective.
1
@CocoXLarge funny : aissez faire capitalism with no government intervention (it is called oversight and regulation) causes massive huge, global crises - and will you believe it government intervenes (well that is too late - but it was not the FDR admin or the Obama admin that caused the mess, they had to do the clean-up. FDR better, Obama was and is a Wallstreet shill. And in general: the firebrigade does not cause the fire even thought they are often seen in the same picture. That the gov. was compelled to intervene and the crises were severe does not mean the gov. intervention caused it to be so severe - it is the other way round because it was so bad something had to be done about it. You are completely ideological. Therefore you like the reverse engineered argumentation that one can find with Mises etc.
1
The GFC (the U.S. portion) was a speculation bubble on the default risk of the subprime loans on top of the real estate bubble with the suprime loans. Repackaging the loans and reselling them just SHIFTED the risk to other financial institutions in other countries. BUT everyone and their dog betting of the default risk multiplied the financial claims (damage) in case loans would default in large numbers.
1
2:00 unprecedented ? Remember when R Conrgress members wrote a letter to Iran, that the deal (an ITNERNATIONAL deal) would be obsolete when the next R overnment comes into office.
1
WORLD BANK per capita health care expenditures in USD in 2014: UK 3,900, U.S. 9,200, average for wealthy * European countries and Canada 5,000 - 5,500, Australia 6,000, Norway plus 8,000. the US expenditures as 235 % of the UK per capita expenditures. The NHS is and always has been a very cost efficient system (certainly the most cost-efficient in Europe, among the best in the world - of course other better funded systems might have been better or more comfortable. According to Larry Sanders (he is politically active in the U.K where he lives) the NHS runs on 100 billion GBP a year now, the Tories CUT 15 - 20 BILLIONS in the last 6 -8 years (which is HUGE), and planned 20 billions more in cuts (that info came from before the snap election).
1
Israel controls and dominates the airspace - they have been bombing in Syria repeatedly (and violating Syrian airspace) - the Iranians then talk tough to save face, they do not mention their killed soldiers much at home - they occasionally send a few missiles that are mostly intercepted and those which get through do not much damage.
1
part 6 of 6 There is no reason at all to leave natural monopolies or healthcare to the profiteers, there is nothing they can do better than a non-profit public institution. But they add costs (best case scenario) and they offer incentives for a toxic culture of extraction and cruelty (that is what happens in the U.S.). IF an institution is FOR-PROFIT by far the most important goal is to maximize profit. Smaller family run companies might act more ethcially and have long term goals and be satisfied with less profit. But large companies with a management chosen by the shareholders and a top down chain of command _invariably show predatory behavior * _ whenever they get away with it. Which they do in healthcare because the insured / patients are the weakest player in the fields. complexity favors large companies - so they will always be a few steps ahead of regulators and consumers. The only way not to lose the game is to not play in the first place. Almost all nations did that. where complexitiy is involved - admin, billing, medical diagnosis and treatment - the profit motive is taken out of the equation. Usually most or all hospitals are non-profits as well. At the minimum the non-profit hospitals set a benchmark regarding costs and reimbursement rates. * They will cheat, accept that harm is done to customers or environment, try to lobby and bribe politicians - also to get subsidies if that is possible. And they will ALWAYS use unfair practices to crush competition.
1
Israel is aggressive towards Lebanaon (tried several times to invade them, and grab Lebanon = WATER) and towards the Palestinians. (shooting unarmed people, praying people, and journalists). - That is why THEY have problems with Hezbollah and Hamas, which are supported by Iran and Syria). The Saudia and partially Israeli supported SUNNI / Wahhabi terrorists cause problems in Europe - not a Iranian, Hezbollah and Hamas sponsored attack in the West in decades. - if we leave them alone, they leave us alone. Israel is one of the nations that supports the jihadists and even ISIS in Syria. (wouldn't it be nice if they could grab a piece of Syria if Syria becomes a failed state after Assad was removed ) ? Well not as long as Iran and Russia support Syria. The rhetoric of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran is irrelevant, there is very nasty rhetoric of Israel as well (MPs). The actions count. Israel is a rogue nuclear power. They invade Syrian airspace ALL THE TIME. (I will concide they dominate the airspace). They are only 10 million people. If they do not keep peace with their neighbours (which should also help with the heat you get) the tensions will continue. And they could not even handle Lebanon on their own (We had to haul their asses out - Lawrence Wilkerson). To defeat Iran an attack with the airforce will not suffice (and they are getting Russian air defense right now). so that means US !! boots on the ground. - Israel cannot fight that alone and Saudi Arabia (also very hostile towards Iran) does not dare it either. So they want to drag the U.S. into a war. Netanyahu is ready to fight Iran - till the last drop of blood of U.S. solidiers.
1
Israel - that last European colony in the world - founded with the help of the U.S. who called the shots at the newly founded UN - was a bad idea. What business did European citizens of Middle Europe have as settlers in the hot, far away country with little water (scriptures many 1000 years old do not count, god is not the real estate agent of Israel, and what's more - genetic analysis has shown that the European Jews do not even come from that area - the area that is Palestine, Lebanon or Israel, Syria, Jordan or Egypt today). The Zionists were a minority in the Jewish community, the discussions where to have their own state covered the Seychelles, Panama, or the British protectorate Palestine. This has nothing to do with "homeland". This minority movement just wanted to persuade a military power to help them occupying an area (and of course driving out the natives). in 1947/1948 Truman - against the distinct opposition of the Pentagon and Secretary of State Gen. Marshall helped to found that colony. The motivation and his answer to his advisors (who thought that would undermine the standing of the U.S. with the oil selling Arab nations of the region): I have hundreds of thousands of voters who are pro the Zionist agenda, but not many Arab ones. Of course the rabid Zionists dispossessed the natives, they disregarded their citizens and property rights as much as the Nazis had done with the Jewish citizens (the Germans did not start right away with the camps). The traumatized survivors of Nazi prosecution cared about their own security and put up with injustice and even atrocities committed against the native settlers that had been there often for many generations. The British had control over the area, yes - but they let the people live there as they had lived there for hundreds of years (like when they were under the Ottoman empire and back). The US called the shots worldwide in the late 1940s and 1950s and the US press covered up for the transgression of the new settler state.
1
You seem to be quite unmoved by unarmed peaceful Palestinian protestors being shot by Israeli forces. As long as THAT is going on, Israel will not not have peace - and they do not seem to care, they arrange themselves under the Iron Dome, play the victims, and are pissed off by BDS - for now. They bribe politicians (see the documentary The Lobby by AlJazeera, openly discussing that they could arrange for a scandal of a deputy secretary in the UK - oops - there was video and audio to prove that). Aipac in the U.S. is notorious. And now they try to drag a foolish U.S. president to have the U.S. military fight the war they do not dare fighting on their own. How do the Swastica drawing people even find you - do you advertise being Jewish.
1
Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State a) said that she accepts that CC is manmade and something needs to be done about it and b) transformed the State department in a promotion institution for fracking worldwide - on behest of the U.S. corporations who know how to do that extraction (using very poisonous chemicals) - the very fracking which ACCELERATES Climate Change. The thing with fracking is - UNBURNT gas (methane) will escape extraction (and sometimes during transport in the pipelines or in the storage) - and fracked gas might be worse in that respect than gas extracted from conventional gas fields.- When gas is burnt then we end up with CO2 (like with every carbon based fuel). Nothing new here. Methane (unburnt fossil gas) is also a greenhouse gas. (And methane can also be produced in bioreactors, and in that case it can be produced and used without leakage, this are always small operations and the gas is used where it is produced. In Vermont they also have a project where they extract methane from garbage dumps - the biomass in the dumps rots away producing methane. That use of the gas is a good thing because it replaces another fossil fuel AND prevents the methane from escaping into the air, after burning there will be only CO2 released into the atmosphere, which is better. If you think we should avoid CO2 - well, Methane has 28 times the effect over 100 years. We should avoid Methane release like the plague (garbage dumps with rotting biomass, farting cows, thawing swamps like the Tundra - this could send us over the cliff as it is a STRONG positive feedback, long pipelines that leak like in Russia, and of course all the leakages that happen during extraction or storage. There is the myth that fracked gas (some marketing genius came up with the name "natural gas") has a lower CO2 footprint than coal. I am no fan of coal either, but that is very unlikely. They made that claim (gas is better than coal) under the assumption that with fracked gas only 2 % or so leak in form of methane, the number is likely over 10 % and since it is such a potent greenhouse gas, this undermines the whole argument and impact calculation. Methane will burn in a clean manner at the place of use. And gas allows on/off operation (unlike coal) and the burning process can be very well adjusted, so good for industrial heating processes. In that sense it is clean - but only at the place where it is finally burnt. Not when you look at the large picture. All of which Hillary Clinton and her advisers should know (I have known that for many, many years). So what is the point of paying lip service when your actions are the same as the deniers (taking money from the industry and promoting their biz and not doing much for the alternatives) ? (I do not mention Cheney/Bush because they were hopeless anyway). But HRC and Obama should have made a much stronger case and fought for a green New Deal - defund the insane military budget and get the new economic paradigm started.
1
That general is a compltee tool Iran was in FULL COMPLIANCE with the deal, It was the U.S. that unilaterally threw it out of the window. Against the adivice and wishes of the allies, Russia, but also people like Michael Hayden (fmr CIA / NSA director).
1
@Gwenhwyfar7 FOX is entertainment not news (there is a court ruling). they are a propaganda outlet. Now, the other outlets are hardly better. I would say their lies are a little bit more sophisticated, and of course they come from a different bias. On Fox News the b.s. is out in the open, the main audience is over 65 years (on average), they do not fact check on the internet and sophistication is not needed. One glaringly stupid thing (beyond any economic or political or racial bias) I remember: The U.S. does not have good conditions to install more solar, conditions are just more favorable in Germany, there they can do it. - no one on the panel corrected her. So they are also ignorant fools glad to spread misinformation - or they do not care. This was not a knowledgeable pro and con of renewable energy they were just badmouthing it. I mean it is not mandatory for a citizen or even an infotainment presenter to know the climate conditions in Germany, or to be informed on renewable energy. - but then just do not comment. That chick had either gotten the order to badmouth renewables or she is biased just because. Either way: she did not let get any information in her way. you have to give it to her: she delivered the nonsense with the air of being very convinced. That is the problem: that the fools are so convinced of themselves and the wise doubt themselves all the time. (not sure which philosopher said it - also see Dunning effect) (the reality: Germany on the solar map can be compared to Alaska - the seasons are not as extreme of course but the sunshine/cloud cover and the potential solar harvest is comparable. The U.S. has many states and Europe many countries where the conditions to harvest solar radiation to produce electricity are much better. Germany has a culture where it is considered smart to be energy efficient. They do not have oil (major factor in WW2, same with Japan btw), only coal - and a well trained work force and a reputation for engineering. Replacing fossil fuels (or nuclear power plants) with human labor and ingenuity could be made a political priority in Germany even though conditions would be much better in Italy, France, Spain, ... because these countries have more sunshine (temperatures do not matter, cooler but sunny is excellent for solar). The German switch to renewable electricity is it's own saga: the government did it for political reasons so WISE things like throwing money at storage research right left and center, to have the next German export hit were intentionally neglected. THAT would upset the large providers. After all when only one reasonbly priced storage solution for homes is sold the economy of scale would kick in as well. They would soon challenge regular production forms of electricity. With comparable prices in total. That would mean a shift to smaller decentral producers. Instead the German car industry with the diesel engine as evolutionary deadend was propped up. That said: the German initiative (with a lot of subsidies) initiated more sales - and if solar capacities double (installations globally) prices will drop by 20 %, that is a very reliable trend since the 1980s. Then the technology was invented to power satellites (price was not an issue. Then 1 KWh cost more than 1 Euro (take 1 Euro for 1 USD for convenience) - now it is possible to produce for as little as 2,5 cent (in Dubai during midday, and storage costs not included - but it shows what is possible. No other form to produce electricty can compete with 2,5 cent per KWh.
1
@Gwenhwyfar7 Well the things that I have seen from Fox News are often stupid, and even more often very openly ideologically biased. That would not matter if they had at least some interesting points to make. - The way the other media are misinforming, lying by obfuscation etc. is different. Fox News is the most crude.
1
@Gwenhwyfar7 As for Germany the specifics about solar (economy of scale) are from a speech Dr. Eicke Weber former head of ISE Fraunhofer institute gave in March 2017 (University Karlsruhe, The role of Photovoltaic for renewable energy system - it is in German however.) You would have a hard time to debate me on Germany ..... The Fox example about photovoltaic I mentioned was just so glaringly stupid. And it offends my sense of professionalism. They have staff, factcheckers, and the presenter could use the internet. That was pure propaganda. It is fine to be against solar - but the objections should not be THAT stupid. Even if they were shilling for the fossil fuel industry or. conventional energy providers (which I very much suspect) they could at least try a little harder when they lie.
1
@Gwenhwyfar7 if you speak German I recommend the presentation of Dr. Eicke Weber. Hochschule Karlsruhe is the channel scroll down). The path is created while you walk it - when it comes to disruptive ! NEW technology. That means technology that changes the paradigm. He showed a picture of a New Yorks street (maybe 5th Avenue) in 1900 and 1913. It was one car versus lots of horse carriages - in 1913 it was the other way round. We know that phenomen from computers for consumers, internet, e-mail, electronics in general, the introduction of electricity, the pill for women (contraception), or antibiotics. These were gamechangers. And usually when the production costs went down because of economy of scale (or they became available at all) - they spread like wildfire (usually much faster than expected). They changed society and the workplace in unexpected ways. I am not a fan of the way Merkel implemented Energiewende. It solved a political problem for her, the cost for the switch were put on the consumers. Well off people can make the investments and benefit from the subsidies when they become producers of electricity - good for them, their installation help to drive down prices for panels. But lower income people have to live with the higher electricity costs with not chance to offset them. - On top of stagnant wages, austerity, etc. Big Biz is excluded from paying for the costs, Big Coal gets a pass - and she is asleep at the wheel when it comes to promoting research for the missing piece which is STORAGE. (which could be the next export hit for Germany). Having reliable and affordable storage (batteries, also solid state batteries, artificial photosynthesis, Power2Gas, .. etc.) would mean that many more citizens could start producing electricity - if only for use at home. So more citizen owned DECENTRAL non-profit, untaxed production. The large providers do not like it (so Merkel does not do it) they prefer projects that can only be pulled off by large investors (windmills), massive investments in a new grid. Australia already has a solar powerplant with batteries (Tesla) it replaces an old coal plant, it is more reliable and the electricity is cheaper. It went live in 2018. Even the flawed German switch from nuclear power to renewable electricity did some good. It provided enough sales to trigger economy of scale. Next thing such electricity producing panels became viable without much subsidies in Australia, California, Texas, India, .... (where they have IDEAL conditions - as opposed to Germany that is in the moderate climate zone and has the same solar input as Alaska (it does ! I have seen the chart). So that Fox News panel member was obviously clueless, she did not even know that Germany is not an especially sunny or warm country. And that most states in the U.S. have the same and many much better conditions for use of solar panels. it was obvious that group had the agend to badmouth solar int the U.S. - and no one relaized she was wrong or they did not care. Shocked me. With political attitudes it is a matter of conviction and preferences - but they were torturing facts.
1
Check out MMT Dr. Stephanie Kelton one of the economic advisors of the 2016 Sandes campaign (the other was prof. Bill Black also recommended - Ted talk). Dr. Keltonhad a good - beginner friendly - interview with Democracy@work- or if you are pressed for time the essentials from Ann Pettifor: The Real News: The myths of the 2017 U.K. elections (that's only 12 minutes and well explaind). Do not let the title divert you: it is about government funding, money creation, debt and deficits, a lot of that came up in the U.K. in 2017).
1
I think UBI is not yet the main issue. Not all forms of UBI are equal: is the proposal for the benefit of the producing oligarchs (that have other interest than the oligarchs that live off capital gains and speculation). Silicon valley etc. do not want to lose the consumer base and they may see the pitchforks coming ) - or is it done for the benefit of the workforce / citizens. To free them from (some) of the need to put up with certain forms of employment and from being dominated 1) and treated like vasalls - and expendable ones. Automation or 3D printing for metals isn't yet there. ** REDUCING weekly work time would be an URGENT issue. it was 40 hours in the U.S. in 1940. Since then a lot of technological development - even revolutions like the computer and the internet - have happened. The more pressing issues (before considering UBI) are "trade" deals that pitch the workforce of poor countries against the workers in the rich country. There was competition between nations - but only those who played in the same league. The Japanese car industry upset the market. And they didn't do it by exploiting the workforce, polluting the environment or cutting corners regarding quality. They were really BETTER. (Mexico and China are "better" because the workers and citizens cannot defend themselves against being exploited and polluted). Therefore Japan changed the market for the better, made their mark into industrial quality management. But such a real and earned advantage is harder to achieve than exploiting poor workers - and of course the other developed nations caught up with Japanese manufacturing (some got major problems like in the U.K. - others adapted like the Germans - but the Japnese had them scratching their heads too. The Germans very much respect the japanese - as their equals if you will, therefore Fukushima was unnverving for the Germans that had already a more critical view on nuclear power. The problem was not the earthquake - a known risk - a major tsunami - lead to a preventable meltdown because of the flooding. After the catastrophic tsunami on Boxing Day which did not damage Japan there were considerations to raise the walls of Fukushima that was built nearby and at the same level as the coast. But there was political interference - as is common with large energy providers especially with nuclear there is a lot of collusion going on. Tax evasion (someone has to pay either for the New Deal or the Green New Deal or UBI) Infrastructure, affordable housing, healthcare, higher education (that has a major impact on costs and quality of living). 1000 USD UBI could give people freedom from a J.O.B. - meaning they could work LESS hours and the company treats you well: 20 intense hours with McDonalds might not be that bad if they do not abuse you and when you have realistic chances to swith to a similar contract with another company without the abuse. But that freedom that the workforce had to a degree in the Golden Era is something that is feared and despised by the employers. They did away with that first time they got a chance. They treat staff well in certain niches (IT for instance, high end engineering), but else it is hire and fire. And there is a a do-as-you-are-told culture. 1) UBI does nothing for your ECONOMIC freedom when extraction by the healthcare industry, for housing, for-profit higher education, healthcare, childcare is going on. And if your basic needs are not met, political and other freedoms do not really help you. FDR btw recognized that. Other major issues: Switch to renewable energy. Overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system - major waste going on in the U.S. , Gemany has 61 % of the expenditures per person of the U.S. (see World Bank), they are at the higher end of the average for a wealthy countries (most are between USD 5,000 - USD 6,000 versus the U.S. with 9,200, Germany US 5600). The German population (or in many other wealthy European countries) is on average older than the U.S. population, so the U.S. should easily beat those nations regarding healthcare costs, because most of the expenditures happen in the last years of life, but it is the other way round. 1) do-as-you-are-told culture In the U.S. it shows in the weird obsession to micromanage what people are wearing at the workplace (in schools too !). Like women being ordered to wear skirts or high heels. In Europe staff is expected to be well groomed, sometimes there are uniforms. For sales representatives (sometimes !) or in finance there is a dress code. But by and large employees are treated as adults that know how to dress properly w/o managment interfering let alone rules and a handbook - and for the most part that works. Else employees get a nudge, but within reasonable boundaries people can dress as they like. And the boundaries what is "allowed" to be worn are less rigid. That extra little freedom does not cost management anything, nor does it hinder staff from performing well to the satisfaction of customers. But it is one power trip that European managers have to forego. It seems like a window into different management cultures to me - and how the relationship between management and staff is really intended to be. so if they even want to show dominance in harmless areas like clothes - they for sure would not like that employees get uppity: that they could leave if they do not like what is going on (even speaking their mind) and just move on to the next job. (not tied to the health isurance, not in desperate need of the money to pay rent, mortgage, student loan or medical bill or for the childcare / school of children).
1